Because something is theoretically possible has absolutely no bearing on it being a factor in actual evolution or life. It's pointless to bring it up. At no time in history have women been disproportionately prioritized or protected. For 97% of history, people lived in egalitarian enclaves where everyone took care of everyone else as the primary survival strategy. There was almost no war, because population density was extremely low and there was plenty of food. If there wasn't, you just moved to a new place. All the neighboring tribes or villages were filled with your relatives. What is there to even fight about?
It's only with the rise of patriarchy about 5k years ago that there's even any need to protect women - although that is certainly not something that really ever took place because by then women were looked at as rather disposable chattel. And, as we can see by the horrendous rates of maternal and infant mortality in the US today, it's still not an actual thing - even if it's theoretical possible.
Just like the similar claim that a man could impregnate 100 women in 100 days, the fact that this is possible, in theory, doesn't mean it's something that ever really took place. It's pointless to bring it up because it's just as irrelevant to actual reality. It's yet another specious manosphere talking point that doesn't hold up to actual scientific investigation and it also didn't speak to (much less negate) any of the other things that I said in the OP. It's just pointless gum flapping....
